Oklahoma requires classes for parents with minor children before allowing divorce

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Oklahomans react to law requiring classes for divorcing parents
OKLAHOMA CITY —Oklahomans filing for divorce will now have to go through an extra step if they have kids.

Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill last week that requires married couples who have children younger than 18 to pay for and attend classes before they can split.

Those classes will cost anywhere between $15 and $60 and will teach parents about the impact divorce will have on the kids.

Many Oklahoma residents have mixed feelings about the new law.

“I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but I just don’t agree with people have to go to classes,” Linda Fuller said.

“If I know we’re not in love anymore, I don’t feel like I should go to any class, just move on with our lives,” Davon Shepherd said.

The law goes into effect on Nov. 1.

source

The party of small government!

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Say what??

I can honestly say I'm not surprised by stuff like this anymore.

**Hordini**

That sounds pretty stupid.

What if it's an abusive marriage? Do they still have to take the class then?

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Oklahomans react to law requiring classes for divorcing parents
OKLAHOMA CITY —Oklahomans filing for divorce will now have to go through an extra step if they have kids.

Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill last week that requires married couples who have children younger than 18 to pay for and attend classes before they can split.

Those classes will cost anywhere between $15 and $60 and will teach parents about the impact divorce will have on the kids.

Many Oklahoma residents have mixed feelings about the new law.

“I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but I just don’t agree with people have to go to classes,” Linda Fuller said.

“If I know we’re not in love anymore, I don’t feel like I should go to any class, just move on with our lives,” Davon Shepherd said.

The law goes into effect on Nov. 1.

source

The party of small government!

Sounds like a damn good idea actually. Nothing says "well this could be better" then being sued 46 times.
Still...flawless victory!

**Ensis Ferrae**

I dunno... I like the "idea" of it, just not the execution. I mean, as it's been pointed out, if there's abuse, then things need to move along more quickly. Perhaps there could be a case by case system where, if there is alleged (or proven) abuse, then the two parent can take the class at the same time as the divorce proceedings?

**d-usa**

One group shouldn't be able to get married, those who can shouldn't be able to get a divorce...I hate this state and flip off the Capitol building everytime I drive past it on my way to work.

**Alpharius**

I'm pretty sure Massachusetts has had something like this in place for quite some time now...

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
One group shouldn't be able to get married, those who can shouldn't be able to get a divorce...I hate this state and flip off the Capitol building everytime I drive past it on my way to work.

I'm honestly confused by this... can you elaborate? Do you mean how they are actively fighting to keep SSM off the books, and created this law making another "hurdle" to keep people from divorcing?

**d-usa**

Pretty much. "Only man and woman can marry, and it's forever!"

**Jihadin**

“If I know we’re not in love anymore, I don’t feel like I should go to any class, just move on with our lives,” Davon Shepherd said.

Alright. I guess he miss the part about children under the age 18 eh

**sebster**

It's often said that couples attend marriage counseling just to give themselves a justification for divorce, because they've already decided that's what they want. Well never could that be more true than when a couple is legally required to attend those classes before getting their divorce.

Anyhow, this law is just beyond stupid. I mean, is anyone anywhere going to honestly claim that they believe there are couples out there who are looking to divorce without attempting counseling first, who would then go in to government mandated classes and do all the work needed to turn their marriage around?

Ouze's comment about the party of small government captures the issue perfectly. Because a large part of the idea of small government is that if you don't want to do it, then a government mandate making you do it just means you're do it half-assed, just enough to meet the requirement, and the whole thing will be pointless. But that seems to be something Republicans can only understand when there's dollars involved, when social issues are involved the whole idea is just forgotten about completely.

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:
It's often said that couples attend marriage counseling just to give themselves a justification for divorce, because they've already decided that's what they want. Well never could that be more true than when a couple is legally required to attend those classes before getting their divorce.

Anyhow, this law is just beyond stupid. I mean, is anyone anywhere going to honestly claim that they believe there are couples out there who are looking to divorce without attempting counseling first, who would then go in to government mandated classes and do all the work needed to turn their marriage around?

Seb, I think you're missing the actual objective of the class... It's not couples therapy/ marriage counseling classes... it's "OK, so you decided you want a divorce... well you have kids, so here's what you need to know/expect because you have kids"

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Alright. I guess he miss the part about children under the age 18 eh

Or he just thinks that parents who aren't in love and don't want to be married anymore won't do any better for their kids because the government has put up a hurdle to them getting divorced.

**Scrabb**

I somehow thought the mandated classes would be for the children. IE The children take the course.

I'm against mandating both. But how much good do ya'll think the latter being available could do?

**d-usa**

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80452785/

"It seems like a small thing to ask people to do — to take a course — when the challenges that come from divorce are so permanent," Nelson told Tulsa World.

Seriously, I can hear advocates saying. What's one class?

One class is one more example of the stigma we attach to kids of divorce as sad, broken future prison inmates. One class is one more example of a culture so obsessed with "traditional family" that it often forgets to talk about the children who thrive with one parent or gay parents or four parents.

One class is one misguided attempt to talk adults out of a decision they most likely arrived at after countless hours (sometimes years) of soul searching and hand-wringing and researching and counseling.

People whose marriages are dissolving don't need a stranger hired by the state to pretend to know what's best for them or their children. They need guidance and resources and some plain old empathy. I doubt a class designed on behalf of "the taxpayers" is going to offer any of the above.
...
"If you are going through the whole divorce process and have kids, if we can do anything to keep people together, we should," Standridge told Reuters. "Marriage is a lifelong contract with the state and with your children."

If states want to help families work through the difficult challenges of divorce, they should offer classes that promise to demystify the process, guide parents to helpful programs and yes, speak candidly about the very real hardships. They should make those classes optional.

What they shouldn't do is introduce the classes as a punitive, defensive maneuver aimed at protecting our schools and prisons from broken-home delinquents, while simultaneously implying divorcing parents are breaking a promise to their children. Parenthood is a lifelong contract with your children. Marriage is not.

**Jihadin**

Wait. Who collect the fee's?

**d-usa**

You know what would be a good idea in my opinion? Do the exact same thing we do with marriage licenses and fees.

In Oklahoma you can get your marriage license without a fee if you complete pre-marriatal counseling. Do the same thing for divorce. If this is really for the children, and not an attempt to force two people to remain married because you think divorce is bad, then put together a really helpful class full of resources and advice on how to co-parent and help your children adapt and grow through this. And after both parents attempt waive the divorce fee. It's an incentive for parents to go to class and learn how to make sure that their kids don't suffer from the divorce, and it does it without punishing the parents.

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Seb, I think you're missing the actual objective of the class... It's not couples therapy/ marriage counseling classes... it's "OK, so you decided you want a divorce... well you have kids, so here's what you need to know/expect because you have kids"

Ah, fair enough, I did miss that. Poor reading on my part.

It's still fething stupid, though. I mean, if some kind of learning is available and people choose not to take it, how much of a learning mood do you think they're going to be in if they're forced to take it?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
You know what would be a good idea in my opinion? Do the exact same thing we do with marriage licenses and fees.

In Oklahoma you can get your marriage license without a fee if you complete pre-marriatal counseling. Do the same thing for divorce. If this is really for the children, and not an attempt to force two people to remain married because you think divorce is bad, then put together a really helpful class full of resources and advice on how to co-parent and help your children adapt and grow through this. And after both parents attempt waive the divorce fee. It's an incentive for parents to go to class and learn how to make sure that their kids don't suffer from the divorce, and it does it without punishing the parents.

Yeah, if you want something like this to work, then you offer it up for free and make it opt out, rather than opt in. Remove the barriers to taking the course, but don't actually mandate it.

**Jihadin**

But its money for the state.

**Smacks**

I agree with the idea of classes, but I think they need to be administered before people get married. Preferably before they do anything of note... Perhaps at some kind of school?

sebster wrote:
a hurdle to them getting divorced.

I imagine that is the real motive behind this. It's just a nod to the anti-divorce lobbyists. Divorce itself has little meaning to children; it is the separation and hostility that damages them. This measure seems 'too little too late' to make anything but a political difference.

Incidentally, I wonder if this also applies to gay married couples with children? Have we had the first same sex divorce yet?

**Jihadin**

Actually after. Child Support preparations and what not, custody, and signs of a kid getting ready to self destruct

**Bullockist**

As someone whos' parents divorced when I was 11 , I can say for myself that having my parents together would not have been better for my development. As soon as the divorce happened there was a much better 'feel' / 'ambience' in the house. It was like living in a cold war, a very frosty cold war. I can safely say there was far less hostility between both my parents after the divorce than before, but perhaps my parents actually behaved like adults after the break up.

I strongly disagree with the doctrines of having 'parents together is better for the children' and 'the children belong with the mother' (as I lived with my father afterwards)

When will the powers that be realise you cannot legislate relationships.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:

Incidentally, I wonder if this also applies to gay married couples with children? Have we had the first same sex divorce yet?

There is already a couple in Australia who are same sex that are getting a divorce that I know of ( ie. that has been in the media)

**Plywood_Slayer**

Indiana has had the same thing in place for a while. My ex and I had to take the thing when we split. It was a couple hours long and very poorly implemented IMO. In concept it's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure what it is going to change. My divorce wasn't hostile, but many are filled with quite a bit of hate and hostility that no two hours are going to change. I might be naive, but I'm pretty sure most people know acting like an ass during a divorce is harmful to their kids. These type of classes won't realign someone's behavior too much. But the state gets to cash in on it.

**Kilkrazy**

I wonder which senator's cousin's counselling company will be selling the classes.